Which curve are we flattening? The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 among economically marginalized communities in Ontario, Canada, was unchanged from wild-type to omicron

Economically marginalized communities have faced disproportionately higher risks for infection and death from COVID-19 across Canada. It was anticipated that health disparities would dissipate over time and during subsequent waves. We used person-level surveillance and neighbourhood-level income data to explore, using Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients, magnitude of inequalities in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths over five waves of COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada (population 14 million) between February 26, 2020 and February 28, 2022. We found that despite attempts at equity-informed policies alongside fluctuating levels of public health measures, inequalities in hospitalizations and deaths by income remained at levels observed during the first wave - prior to vaccination, discussion or implementation of equity-informed policies - and despite rising levels of hybrid immunity. There was no change in the magnitude of inequalities across all waves evaluated. Our findings indicate that interventions did not sufficiently address differential exposure risks amplified at the intersections of household crowding and size, workplace exposures, and systemic barriers to prevention and care (including access to therapeutics). Equity and effectiveness of programs are inherently linked and ongoing evaluation of both is central to inform the public health response to future waves of COVID-19 and other rapidly emergent pandemics.

Impact of a vaccine passport on first-dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage by age and area-level social determinants in the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario: an interrupted time series analysis

BackgroundIn Canada, all provinces implemented vaccine passports in 2021 to increase vaccine uptake and reduce transmission in non-essential indoor spaces. We evaluate the impact of vaccine passport policies on first-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage by age, area-level income and proportion racialized. MethodsWe performed interrupted time-series analyses using vaccine registry data linked to census information in Quebec and Ontario (20.5 million people [≥]12 years; unit of analysis: dissemination area). We fit negative binomial regressions to weekly first-dose vaccination, using a natural spline to capture pre-announcement trends, adjusting for baseline vaccination coverage (start: July 3rd; end: October 23rd Quebec, November 13th Ontario). We obtain counterfactual vaccination rates and coverage, and estimated vaccine passports impact on vaccination coverage (absolute) and new vaccinations (relative). ResultsIn both provinces, pre-announcement first-dose vaccination coverage was 82% ([≥]12 years). The announcement resulted in estimated increases in vaccination coverage of 0.9 percentage points (p.p.;95%CI:0.4-1.2) in Quebec and 0.7 p.p. (95%CI:0.5-0.8) in Ontario. In relative terms, these increases correspond to 23% (95%CI:10-36%) and 19% (95%CI:15-22%) more vaccinations. The impact was larger among people aged 12-39 (1-2 p.p.). There was little variability in the absolute impact by area-level income or proportion racialized in either province. ConclusionsIn the context of high baseline vaccine coverage across two provinces, the announcement of vaccine passports led to a small impact on first-dose coverage, with little impact on reducing economic and racial inequities in vaccine coverage. Findings suggest the need for other policies to further increase vaccination coverage among lower-income and more racialized neighbourhoods and communities. Key messagesO_LIVaccine passport policies increased COVID-19 vaccination coverage by approximately 1 percentage point (19 to 23% increase in vaccinations) in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. C_LIO_LIAlthough vaccine passport policies increased vaccination coverage, absolute gains were limited in the context of high prior vaccine coverage. C_LIO_LIVaccine passports had little impact on reducing economic and racial inequities in vaccine coverage. C_LI

Predictors of all-cause mortality among patients hospitalized with influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, or SARS-CoV-2

BackgroundShared and divergent predictors of clinical severity across respiratory viruses may support clinical and community responses in the context of a novel respiratory pathogen. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to identify predictors of 30-day all-cause mortality following hospitalization with influenza (N=45,749; 2011-09 to 2019-05), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV; N=24,345; 2011-09 to 2019-04), or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; N=8,988; 2020-03 to 2020-12; pre-vaccine) using population-based health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Multivariable modified Poisson regression was used to assess associations between potential predictors and mortality. We compared the direction, magnitude, and confidence intervals of risk ratios to identify shared and divergent predictors of mortality. Results3,186 (7.0%), 697 (2.9%) and 1,880 (20.9%) patients died within 30 days of hospital admission with influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2, respectively. Shared predictors of increased mortality included: older age, male sex, residence in a long-term care home, and chronic kidney disease. Positive associations between age and mortality were largest for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Few comorbidities were associated with mortality among patients with SARS-CoV-2 as compared to those with influenza or RSV. ConclusionsOur findings may help identify patients at greatest risk of illness secondary to a respiratory virus, anticipate hospital resource needs, and prioritize local prevention and therapeutic strategies to communities with higher prevalence of risk factors.

Area-level social and structural inequalities determine mortality related to COVID-19 diagnosis in Ontario, Canada: a population-based explanatory modeling study of 11.8 million people

ImportanceSocial determinants of health (SDOH) play an important role in COVID-19 outcomes. More research is needed to quantify this relationship and understand the underlying mechanisms. ObjectivesTo examine differential patterns in COVID-19-related mortality by area-level SDOH accounting for confounders; and to compare these patterns to those for non-COVID-19 mortality, and COVID-19 case fatality (COVID-19-related death among those diagnosed). Design, setting, and participantsPopulation-based retrospective cohort study including all community living individuals aged 20 years or older residing in Ontario, Canada, as of March 1, 2020 who were followed through to March 2, 2021. ExposureSDOH variables derived from the 2016 Canada Census at the dissemination area-level including: median household income; educational attainment; proportion of essential workers, racialized groups, recent immigrants, apartment buildings, and high-density housing; and average household size. Main outcomes and measuresCOVID-19-related death was defined as death within 30 days following, or 7 days prior to a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Cause-specific hazard models were employed to examine the associations between SDOH and COVID-19-related mortality, treating non-COVID-19 mortality as a competing risk. ResultsOf 11,810,255 individuals included, 3,880 (0.03%) died related to COVID-19 and 88,107 (0.75%) died without a positive test. After accounting for demographics, baseline health, and other SDOH, the following SDOH were associated with increased hazard of COVID-19-related death (hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals]) comparing the most to least vulnerable group): lower income (1.30[1.09-1.54]), lower educational attainment (1.27[1.10-1.47]), higher proportion essential workers (1.28[1.10-1.50]), higher proportion racialized groups (1.42[1.16-1.73]), higher proportion apartment buildings (1.25[1.11-1.41]), and larger vs. medium household size (1.30[1.13-1.48]). In comparison, areas with higher proportion racialized groups were associated with a lower hazard of non-COVID-19 mortality (0.88[0.85-0.92]). With the exception of income, SDOH were not independently associated with COVID-19 case fatality. Conclusions and relevanceArea-level social and structural inequalities determine COVID-19-related mortality after accounting for individual demographic and clinical factors. COVID-19 has reversed the pattern of lower non-COVID-19 mortality by racialized groups. Pandemic responses should include prioritized and community-tailored intervention strategies to address SDOH that mechanistically underpin disproportionate acquisition and transmission risks and shape barriers to the reach of, and access to prevention interventions. Key pointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSAre area-level social determinants of health factors independently associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality after accounting for demographics and clinical factors? FindingsIn this population-based cohort study including 11.8 million adults residing in Ontario, Canada and 3,880 COVID-19-related death occurred between Mar 1, 2020 and Mar 2, 2021, we found that areas characterized by lower SES (including lower income, lower educational attainment, and higher proportion essential workers), greater ethnic diversity, more apartment buildings, and larger vs. medium household size were associated with increased hazard of COVID-19-related mortality compared to their counterparts, even after accounting for individual-level demographics, baseline health, and other area-level SDOH. MeaningPandemic responses should include prioritized and community-tailored intervention strategies to address SDOH that mechanistically underpin inequalities in acquisition and transmission risks, and in the reach of, and access to prevention interventions.

Increasing concentration of COVID-19 by socioeconomic determinants and geography in Toronto, Canada: an observational study

BackgroundInequities in the burden of COVID-19 observed across Canada suggest heterogeneity within community transmission. ObjectivesTo quantify the magnitude of heterogeneity in the wider community (outside of long-term care homes) in Toronto, Canada and assess how the magnitude in concentration evolved over time (January 21 to November 21, 2020). DesignRetrospective, population-based observational study using surveillance data from Ontarios Case and Contact Management system. SettingToronto, Canada. ParticipantsLaboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 (N=33,992). MeasurementsWe generated epidemic curves by SDOH and crude Lorenz curves by neighbourhoods to visualize inequities in the distribution of COVID-19 cases by social determinants of health (SDOH) and estimated the crude Gini coefficient. We examined the correlation between SDOH using Pearson correlation coefficients. ResultsThe Gini coefficient of cumulative cases by population size was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.36-0.47) and were estimated for: household income (0.20, 95%CI: 0.14-0.28); visible minority (0.21, 95%CI: 0.16-0.28); recent immigration (0.12, 95%CI: 0.09-0.16); suitable housing (0.21, 95%CI: 0.14-0.30); multi-generational households (0.19, 95%CI: 0.15-0.23); and essential workers (0.28, 95% CI: 0.23-0.34). Most SDOH were highly correlated. Locally acquired cases were concentrated in higher income neighbourhoods in the early phase of the epidemic, and then concentrated in lower income neighbourhoods. Mirroring the trajectory of epidemic curves by income, the Lorenz curve shifted over time from below to above the line of equality with a similar pattern across SDOH. LimitationsStudy relied on area-based measures of the SDOH and individual case counts of COVID-19. We cannot infer concentration of cases by specific occupational exposures given limitation to broad occupational categories. ConclusionCOVID-19 is increasingly concentrated by SDOH given socioeconomic inequities and structural racism. Primary Funding SourceCanadian Institutes of Health Research.

Characterizing the disproportionate burden of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern among essential workers in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTO_ST_ABSImportanceC_ST_ABSThe emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOC) across North America has been associated with concerns of increased COVID-19 transmission. Characterizing the distribution of VOCs can inform the development and implementation of policies and programs to address the prevention needs of disproportionately affected communities. ObjectiveWe compared per-capita rates of COVID-19 cases (overall and VOC) from February 3, 2021 to March 10, 2021, across neighborhoods in the health regions of Toronto and Peel, Ontario, by proportion of the population working in essential services and income. DesignDescriptive epidemiological analysis, integrating COVID-19 surveillance and census data. Per-capita daily epidemic curves were generated using 7-days rolling averages for cases and deaths. Cumulative per-capita rates were determined using census-reported population of each neighbourhood. SettingThe study setting was the city of Toronto and the region of Peel (the City of Brampton, Mississauga, and Caledon), Canadas largest cities with a combined population of 4.3 million. This area of Canada has had one of the highest incident rates of COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. ParticipantsWe used person-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 community cases (N=22,478) and census data for neighborhood-level attributes. ExposuresWe stratified neighbourhood using dissemination areas which represent geographic areas of approximately 400-700 individuals, into tertiles by ranking the proportion of population in each neighbourhood working in essential services (health, trades, transport, equipment, manufacturing, utilities, sales, services, agriculture); and the per-person equivalent household income. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)The primary outcomes were laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases overall and VOC positives by neighbourhood. ResultsDuring the study period, VOC cases emerged faster in groups with lowest income (growth rate 43.8%, 34.6% and 21.6% by income tertile from lowest to highest), and most essential work (growth rate 18.4%, 30.8% and 50.8% by tertile from lowest tertile of essential workers to highest tertile of essential workers). Conclusions and RelevanceThe recent introduction of VOC in the large urban area of Toronto has disproportionately affected neighbourhoods with the most essential workers and lowest income levels. Notably, this is consistent with the increased burden of non-VOC COVID-19 cases suggesting shared risk factors. To date, restrictive public health strategies have been of limited impact in these communities suggesting the need for complementary and well-specified supportive strategies including vaccine prioritization to address disparities and overall incidence of both VOC and non-VOC COVID-19. KEY POINTS QuestionDoes the emergence of Variants of Concern (VOC) in urban centers in Canada affect groups based on income and essential work status disproportionally? FindingsWe found a significantly higher cumulative case count and rate of increase of VOC cases amongst those with lowest income and highest essential work status. MeaningThe distribution of VOC and COVID-19 in general is disproportionately distributed, and mitigation measures, including vaccines should be targeted to the highest risk groups.

The Missing Science: Epidemiological data gaps for COVID-19 policy in the United States

We report on a scoping study of COVID-19 epidemiological data available for COVID-19 policy and management decisions for U.S. settings. We synthesize current US Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates for parameter of infectious transmission, infection severity, and disease burden, and summarize epidemiologic contributions to these parameters published by CDC-affiliated investigators through Oct 30, 2020. Authoritative estimates of most infectious transmission and infection severity parameters exist but rely primarily on data from studies conducted in non-U.S. populations. Estimates of secondary infection risks for household, workplace, school, or other community settings are lacking and estimates of the clinical fraction remain uncertain. The CDC reports multiple disease incidence and prevalence measures at national and state geographies, including some measures disaggregated by age group, race/ethnicity and sex; however, nationally uniform disease burden measures are not available at the sub-state level or for sub-populations defined by exposure setting, limiting opportunities for targeted interventions. CDC-affiliated investigators authored 133 quantitative studies on COVID-19 through Oct 30, 2020; however only 34 employed analytic methods. The remainder were descriptive. Of the 34 analytic studies, eleven reported on risk factors for infection, seven reported on risk factors for severe disease, three on symptomatic infections, three reported secondary infection risks, and four reported on indirect pandemic effects. Gaps remain in the epidemiological data required for an efficient and equitable public health policy response to COVID-19. The existence of these gaps one year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need for standardizing data collection and research priorities and protocols in the context of a rapidly emerging infectious disease epidemics.

The Individual and Social Determinants of COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Wide Study

BackgroundOptimizing the public health response to reduce coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden necessitates characterizing population-level heterogeneity of COVID-19 risks. However, heterogeneity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing may introduce biased estimates depending on analytic design. MethodsWe explored the potential for collider bias and characterized individual, environmental, and social determinants of testing and diagnosis using cross-sectional analyses among 14.7 million community-dwelling people in Ontario, Canada. Among those diagnosed, we used separate analytic designs to compare predictors of: 1) individuals testing positive versus negative; 2) symptomatic individuals only testing positive versus testing negative; and 3) individuals testing positive versus individuals not testing positive (i.e., testing negative or not being tested). Analyses included tests conducted between March 1 and June 20, 2020. ResultsOf a total of 14,695,579 individuals, 758,691 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 25,030 (3.3%) tested positive. The further the odds of testing from the null, the more variability observed in the odds of diagnosis across analytic design, particularly among individual factors. There was less variability in testing by social determinants across analytic designs. Residing in areas with highest household density (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.86; 95%CI: 1.75-1.98), highest proportion of essential workers (aOR: 1.58; 95%CI: 1.48-1.69), lowest educational attainment (aOR: 1.33; 95%CI: 1.26-1.41), and highest proportion of recent immigrants (aOR: 1.10; 95%CI: 1.05-1.15) were consistently related to increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis regardless of analytic design. InterpretationWhere testing is limited, risk factors may be better estimated using population comparators rather than test-negative comparators. Optimizing COVID-19 responses necessitates investment and sufficient coverage of structural interventions tailored to heterogeneity in social determinants of risk, including household crowding, occupation, and structural racism.

Gender-affirming care, mental health, and economic stability in the time of COVID-19: a global cross-sectional study of transgender and non-binary people

BackgroundTransgender and non-binary people are disproportionately burdened by barriers to quality healthcare, mental health challenges, and economic hardship. This study examined the impact of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and subsequent control measures on gender-affirming care, mental health, and economic stability among transgender and non-binary people globally. MethodsWe collected global cross-sectional data from 964 transgender and non-binary adult users of the Hornet and Her apps from April to August 2020 to characterize changes in gender-affirming care, mental health, and economic stability as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted Poisson regression models to assess if access to gender-affirming care and ability to live according to ones gender were related to depressive symptoms, anxiety, and changes in suicidal ideation. ResultsIndividuals resided in 76 countries, including Turkey (27.4%,n=264/964) and Thailand (20.6%,n=205). A majority were non-binary (66.8%,n=644) or transfeminine (29.4%,n=283). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 55.0% (n=320/582) reported reduced access to gender- affirming resources, and 38.0% (n=327/860) reported reduced time lived according to their gender. About half screened positive for depression (50.4%,442/877) and anxiety (45.8%,n=392/856). One in six (17.0%,n=112/659) expected losses of health insurance, and 77.0% (n=724/940) expected income reductions. The prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and increased suicidal ideation were 1.63 (95% CI: 1.36-1.97), 1.61 (95% CI: 1.31-1.97), and 1.74 (95% CI: 1.07-2.82) times higher for individuals whose access to gender- affirming resources was reduced versus not. DiscussionThe COVID-19 pandemic has reduced access to gender-affirming resources and the ability of transgender and non-binary people to live according to their gender worldwide. These reductions may drive the increased depressive symptoms, anxiety, and suicidal ideation reported in this sample. To improve transgender and non-binary health globally, increased access to gender-affirming resources should be achieved through policies (e.g., digital prescriptions), flexible interventions (e.g., telehealth), and support for existing transgender health initiatives.

Estimating the potential impact of COVID-19-related disruptions on HIV incidence and mortality among men who have sex with men in the United States: a modelling study

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, gay and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States (US) report similar or fewer sexual partners and reduced HIV testing and care access. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use has declined. We estimated the potential impact of COVID-19 on HIV incidence and mortality among US MSM. MethodsWe used a calibrated HIV transmission model for MSM in Baltimore, Maryland, and available data on COVID-19-related disruptions to predict impacts of data-driven reductions in sexual partners(0%,25%,50%), condom use(5%), HIV testing(20%), viral suppression(10%), PrEP initiations(72%), PrEP use(9%) and ART initiations(50%), exploring different disruption durations and magnitudes. We estimated the median (95% credible interval) change in cumulative new HIV infections and deaths among MSM over one and five years, compared with a scenario without COVID-19-related disruptions. FindingsA six-month 25% reduction in sexual partners among Baltimore MSM, without HIV service changes, could reduce new HIV infections by 12{middle dot}2%(11{middle dot}7,12{middle dot}8%) and 3{middle dot}0%(2{middle dot}6,3{middle dot}4%) over one and five years, respectively. In the absence of changes in sexual behaviour, the six-month data-driven disruptions to condom use, testing, viral suppression, PrEP initiations, PrEP use and ART initiations combined were predicted to increase new HIV infections by 10{middle dot}5%(5{middle dot}8,16{middle dot}5%) over one year, and by 3{middle dot}5%(2{middle dot}1,5{middle dot}4%) over five years. A 25% reduction in partnerships offsets the negative impact of these combined service disruptions on new HIV infections (overall reduction 3{middle dot}9%(-1{middle dot}0,7{middle dot}4%), 0{middle dot}0%(-1{middle dot}4,0{middle dot}9%) over one, five years, respectively), but not on HIV deaths (corresponding increases 11{middle dot}0%(6{middle dot}2,17{middle dot}7%), 2{middle dot}6%(1{middle dot}5,4{middle dot}3%)). The predicted impacts of reductions in partnerships or viral suppression doubled if they lasted 12 months or if disruptions were twice as large. InterpretationMaintaining access to ART and adherence support is of the utmost importance to minimise excess HIV-related mortality due to COVID-19 restrictions in the US, even if accompanied by reductions in sexual partnerships. FundingNIH Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThe COVID-19 pandemic and responses to it have disrupted HIV prevention and treatment services and led to changes in sexual risk behaviour in the United States, but the overall potential impact on HIV transmission and HIV-related mortality is not known. We searched PubMed for articles documenting COVID-related disruptions to HIV prevention and treatment and changes in sexual risk behaviour in the United States, published between 1st January and 7th October 2020, with no language restrictions, using the terms COVID* AND (HIV OR AIDS) AND ("United States" OR US). We identified three cross-sectional surveys assessing changes in sexual risk behaviour among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States, one finding a reduction, one a slight increase, and one no change in partner numbers during COVID-19 restrictions. Two of these studies also found reductions in reported HIV testing, HIV care and/or access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among MSM due to COVID-19. A separate study from a San Francisco clinic found declines in viral suppression among its clients during lockdown. We searched PubMed for articles estimating the impact of COVID-related disruptions on HIV transmission and mortality published between 1st January 2020 and 12th October 2020, with no language restrictions, using the following terms: COVID* AND model* AND (HIV OR AIDS). We identified two published studies which had used mathematical modelling to estimate the impact of hypothetical COVID-19-related disruptions to HIV programmes on HIV-related deaths and/or new HIV infections in Africa, another published study using modelling to estimate the impact of COVID-19-related disruptions and linked HIV and SARS-CoV-2 testing on new HIV infections in six cities in the United States, and a pre-print reporting modelling of the impact of COVID-19-related disruptions on HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in Atlanta, United States. None of these studies were informed by data on the size of these disruptions. The two African studies and the Atlanta study assessed the impact of disruptions to different healthcare disruptions separately, and all found that the greatest negative impacts on new HIV infections and/or deaths would arise from interruptions to antiretroviral therapy. They all found smaller effects on HIV-related mortality and/or incidence from other healthcare disruptions, including HIV testing, PrEP use and condom supplies. The United States study assessing the impact of linked HIV and SARS-CoV-2 testing estimated that this could substantially reduce HIV incidence. Added value of this studyWe used mathematical modelling to derive estimates of the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on HIV incidence and mortality among MSM in the United States, directly informed by data from the United States on disruptions to HIV testing, antiretroviral therapy and pre-exposure prophylaxis services and reported changes in sexual risk behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also assessed the impact of an HIV testing campaign during COVID-19 lockdown. Implications of all the available evidenceIn the United States, maintaining access to antiretroviral therapy and adherence support for both existing and new users will be crucial to minimize excess HIV-related deaths arising from the COVID-19 pandemic among men who have sex with men. While reductions in sexual risk behaviour may offset increases in new HIV infections arising from disruptions to HIV prevention and treatment services, this will not offset the additional HIV-related deaths which are also predicted to occur. There are mixed findings on the impact of an HIV testing campaign among US MSM during COVID-19 lockdown. Together, these studies highlight the importance of maintaining effective HIV treatment provision during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Potential interruptions in HIV prevention and treatment services for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men associated with COVID-19

BackgroundGlobally, the coronavirus pandemic has necessitated a range of population-based measures in order to stem the spread of infection and reduce COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. These measures may be associated with disruptions to other health services including for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) at risk for or living with HIV. Here, we assess the relationship between stringency of COVID-19 mitigation strategies and interruptions to HIV prevention and treatment services for MSM. MethodsData for this study were collected as part of a COVID-19 Disparities Survey implemented by the gay social networking app Hornet, with data collected between April 16th, 2020 and May 24th, 2020. Data were assessed for countries where at least 50 participants completed the survey, to best evaluate country-level heterogeneity. We used a modified Poisson regression model, with clustering at the country-level, to assess the association between stringency of pandemic control measures and access to HIV services. Pandemic control measures were quantified using the Oxford Government Response Tracker Stringency Index; each country received a score (0-100) based on the number and strictness of nine indicators related to school and workplace closures and travel bans. ResultsA total of 10,654 MSM across 20 countries were included in these analyses. The mean age was 34.2 (standard deviation: 10.8), and 12% (1264/10540) of participants reported living with HIV. The median stringency score was 82.31 (Range:[19.44, Belarus]-[92.59, Ukraine]). For every ten-point increase in stringency, there was a 3% reduction in the prevalence of access to in-person testing (aPR: 0.97, 95% Cl:[0.96, 0.98]), a 6% reduction in the prevalence of access to self-testing (aPR: 0.94, 95% Cl:[0.93, 0.95]), and a 5% reduction in access to PrEP (aPR: 0.95, 95% Cl:[0.95, 0.97]). Among those living with HIV, close to one in five (n = 218/1105) participants reported being unable to access their provider either in-person or via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a greater proportion of interruptions to treatment services reported in Belarus and Mexico. Almost half (n = 820/1254) reported being unable to refill their HIV medicine prescription remotely. ConclusionsMore stringent government responses were associated with decreased access to HIV diagnostic, prevention, and treatment services. To minimize increases in HIV-related morbidity and mortality, innovative strategies are needed to facilitate minimize service interruptions to MSM communities during this and potential future waves of COVID-19.

Heterogeneity in risk, testing and outcome of COVID-19 across outbreak settings in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: an observational study

BackgroundWe compared the risk of, testing for, and death following COVID-19 infection across three settings (long-term care homes (LTCH), shelters, the rest of the population) in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Canada. MethodsWe sourced person-level data from COVID-19 surveillance and reporting systems in Ontario, and examined settings with population-specific denominators (LTCH residents, shelters, and the rest of the population). We calculated cumulatively, the diagnosed cases per capita, proportion tested for COVID-19, daily and cumulative positivity, and case fatality proportion. We estimated the age- and sex-adjusted relative rate ratios for test positivity and case fatality using quasi-Poisson regression. ResultsBetween 01/23/2020-05/25/2020, we observed a shift in the proportion of cases: from travel-related and into LTCH and shelters. Cumulatively, compared to the rest of the population, the number of diagnosed cases per 100,000 was 59-fold and 18-fold higher among LTCH and shelter residents, respectively. By 05/25/2020, 77.2% of LTCH residents compared to 2.4% of the rest of the population had been tested. After adjusting for age and sex, LTCH residents were 2.5 times (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.3-2.8) more likely to test positive. Case fatality was 26.3% (915/3485), 0.7% (3/402), and 3.6% (506/14133) among LTCH residents, shelter population, and others in the GTA, respectively. After adjusting for age and sex, case fatality was 1.4-fold (95%CI: 1.1-1.9) higher among LTCH residents than the rest of the population. InterpretationHeterogeneity across micro-epidemics among specific populations in specific settings may reflect underlying heterogeneity in transmission risks, necessitating setting-specific COVID-19 prevention and mitigation strategies.